4 



The States-Rights Fetish 



A Plea for Real 

Nationalism 



Leffm 



ann 



/ 



t 




Class o t I 5 2j €> 
Book - !■> 



PRESENTED BY 



I 



The States- Rights 
Fetish 



A Plea for 
Real Nationalism 



By 

Henry Leflfmann, A.M., M.D. 

Member of the Democratic Club of Philadelphia 
Single- Taxer 



1913 



.L4 



TO THE MEMORY OF 

THE FEDERALISTS, 

WHO IN THE FORMATIV PERIOD 

OF THE NATION 

DID ALL THEY COULD TO SECURE A REAL UNION 



CarBe^L'* Institution 

of 'Wasnington 

1913 



Preface 

Many years ago, I was, like most yung Amer- 
icans, a member of a debating society. I deliverd 
an address "On the Advisability of Abolishing all 
State Governments." Tho I was applauded, no 
one of the audience supported my views. Some 
years later, by request, I repeated the address, and 
found one supporter. I exprest my satisfaction, 
saying that as my party had doubled its strengtl^ 
in a short time, its ultimate victory was assured. 
I do not dout that if I was to deliver the address 
before the same audience now, I would find much 
more support. I hav long had the notion of put- 
ting my views in print and hav now done so. 

Eminent Americans hav written lately on the 
new freedom and the new nationalism; the present 
essay is a protest against the "crazy quilt" system 
of government that has so long afflicted the United 
States. E pluribus unum; Amen. 

H.L. 

1913 



INTRODUCTION 

Six score and seventeen years ago, the repre- 
sentativs of thirteen colonies independent of one 
another in their poHtical systems, in many ways 
rivals in commerce and trade, but closely allied 
in language, racial origins and social customs, 
bound themselves by a document, prepared, rati^ 
fied and publisht in a formal and solem manner, 
to mutual support in a struggle against the author- 
ity of what was considered by all as the Mother 
Country. This document containd declarations 
concerning principles of government, that wer 
then regarded as novel and radical. A careful 
study of history informs us that the Declaration 
of Independence is a re-statement of political 
dogmas of high antiquity, but that fact does not 
detract from the merit of those who prepared and 
ratified it. Its leading motiv, the equality of all 
men as individuals, and therefore the dependence 
of government on the consent of the governd, 
establisht a basis for organization when the strug- 
gle had ended in the destruction of the authority 

[5] 



of England. It is conceded, however, by all who 
hav compared the Declaration with the Consti- 
tution, that the latter is a retreat from the radical- 
ism of the former. When it became necessary to 
"form a more perfect union," the "glittering and 
sounding generalities of natural right" could not 
alone suffice. 

The close of the rebellion found the thirteen 
states deeply in det. The issues wer, in the last 
analysis, essentially those of the middle class, and 
as far as control was exercised by any group it 
was by this class. The ministerial army had with- 
drawn; the traitors to the King were in full pos- 
session. As the war had been successful, it is known 
in history as a revolution and its supporters as 
patriots. The terms are merely conventional. 
Had the effort faild it would hav doutless been 
described in English textbooks of history as the 
American Rebellion, the heds of Washington, 
Jefferson and Franklin might hav adorned pikes 
on State-House roof, as a warning to restiv 
colonists, and Benedict Arnold and Joseph Gallo- 
way hav got back the lands taken from them 
when attainted of treason. 

The close of the Revolutionary War presents 
one unusual feature, the unselfishness of the great 
commander, who promptly withdrew from his 

[6] 



office and, exacting no conditions, returned to a 
private station, to busy himself with plans for ad- 
vancing the prosperity of the country, and welding 
its interests in more harmonius association. His 
action finds few counterparts in history, for from 
Cincinnatus to Washington, most leaders of success- 
ful wars hav secured for themselves power and do- 
minion. 

Popular narrativs of the revolutionary period 
giv inaccurate views of the state of public opinion 
and of the causes of the uprising. The theory 
that "taxation without representation" was the 
mainspring is without foundation. Nor was in- 
dependence a primary motiv. In the early 70's, 
no wish for separation from the Mother Country 
was in the minds of the mass of the people, and 
positiv expressions against such separation can be 
found in the letters of some of those who afterwards 
became leaders in the rebellion. This spirit of 
loyalty to Great Britain was not wholly dictated 
by patriotism or "ties of blood." The colonists 
were deeply conscius of the fact that other Euro- 
pean powers wer contesting with Great Britain for 
supremacy of the seas and extension of territory, 
and that deprived of the protection of the Mother 
Country, they would soon fall a prey to France or 
Spain. Such conquest would be more than a mere 

[7] 



change of masters. To the English, Dutch, Scan- 
dinavian and German colonists, the idea of con- 
trol by a Latin race, with its low standard of sexual 
principles, its opressiv, unscrupulus, political meth- 
ods and its bigotry in religion, was terrifying, and 
they preferred to bear the ills they had than fly to 
others that wer worse. 

Events, great or little, in history ar not the out- 
come of conditions immediately preceding them, 
but of a long course of prior occurrences. Nor do 
those who take part in the events control the course 
or outcome of them entirely. The beginnings of 
the American Revolution can be traced back to the 
earliest period of English history. Those who pro- 
moted it in its beginnings did not foresee the deep 
consequences of their work, no more than the 
people of the United States foresaw the outcome of 
the Spanish-American war, which, promoted by 
the capitalistic class, resulted in giving us the 
Philippines which the capitalists did not want and 
releasing Cuba, which they intended to get. 

The colonies were forced into nominal union by 
the course of events between 1775 and 1781, and 
when peace, with independence, was obtained, it 
was evident that this independence was not as- 
sured unless the union could be made more firm. 

The articles of confederation that went into 

[8] 



effect in 1781 mark in some ways the acme of 
States-rights theories. They provided for a con- 
gress, each state having but one vote and the affir- 
mativ vote of nine states was required for all im- 
portant actions. No executiv head was appointed; 
the utmost power given in this regard was the 
appointment of an executiv committee to sit when 
the congress was not in session. Unless nine 
states agreed, congress could not declare war, 
make treaties, coin money, make appropriations, 
appoint a commander-in-chief or even determin on 
the sums of money that it would request from the 
states. ("The American Nation" series, vol. 10, 
p. 48.) 

These provisions gave constant dissatisfaction, 
as would be expected by any one familiar with the 
history of government and its fundamental prin- 
ciples. In all the discussions, we see the local 
colonial pride and exaggerated notions as to the re- 
lations of the state government to personal liberty. 
Even Jefferson was caught by the glamor of state- 
rights, and as late as 1801, in his first inaugural 
address, spoke of "The support of the State govern- 
ments in all their rights as the most competent 
administration of our domestic concerns and the 
surest bulwarks against anti-republican tenden- 
cies." Hamilton stands out as a man of clearer 

[9] 



mind on this question, but he had few supporters. 
Washington, tho not lacking in state pride, was 
able to rise above the petty interests of locality, 
and writing to John Jay, under date of Mar. 10, 
1787, concerning the prospect for a closer union of 
states and an increase in federal authority, says 
{Jay Correspondence, 3) "My opinion is that this 
country has yet to feel and see a little more before 
it can be accomplisht. A thirst for power, and 
the bantling — I had like to have said monster — 
Soverenty, which have taken such fast hold of 
the States, individually, will when joined by the 
many whose personal consequence in the line of 
State politics wil in a manner be annihilated, form 
a strong phalanx against it, and, when to these, 
the few who can hold posts of honor or profit in 
the National Government, ar compared with the 
many who wil see but little prospect of being 
noticed, and the discontents of others who may 
look for appointments, the opposition would be 
altogether irresistible, til the mass as wel as the 
more discerning part of the community shal see 
the necessity." 

The force of decentralization in the colonies is 
shown even in rivalries between different parts of 
states. Thus, when after the conclusion of peace 
with Great Britain, Washington took up activly 

flOl 



the promotion of the company which was to de- 
velop the slack-water system of navigating the 
Potomac River, he found that to get the support 
of the Virginia legislature it was necessary to favor 
also a company for the improvment of the James 
River, that is, the inhabitants, at least the middle- 
class portion, of the southern part of the state wer 
so little interested in the improvment of the north- 
ern part that the "pork-barrel" method so wel 
known in modern legislation had to be applied. 
Washington took but little interest in the James 
River company; he was offered the presidency of 
it but declined. By special act of the Virginia 
legislature he was given a large block of stock in 
it, and his letter accepting this, sent in reply to 
one from Benjamin Harrison, then Governor of 
Virginia, is still excellent reading. As fate would 
hav it, the Potomac company to which Washing- 
ton gave so much thought and energy was a finan- 
cial failure, while the James River venture became 
a success, and his shares, which he left by wil for 
educational purposes, became valuable. 

That jealousies should arise between different 
parts of the same state is merely a result of the 
principle by which the states themselves hav been 
founded. The initial settlements along the Atlan- 
tic coast were not made with any co-ordination. 

fill 



No careful adjustment of boundaries was made by 
the original settlers. The grants of land by Euro- 
pean rulers wer often mere paper assignments. 
When by the increase of population, the settle- 
ments wer extended beyond the original foci, 
conflicting claims of jurisdiction began to appear, 
Connecticut claimed a large part of the territory 
now included in Pennsylvania; Lord Baltimore 
claimed for his colony a large portion of Delaware 
and southern Pennsylvania, and had it not been 
for the accident that a colony of Europeans had 
settled in Delaware, before the grant was made 
to him, Philadelphia would hav been included 
within the boundaries of Maryland and would be a 
southern city. It is not necessary to set forth at 
length these disputes. The division of state lines 
in the territory outside of the area included in the 
thirteen colonies has been made as a rule with 
equal want of system, a stake stuck in a prairie 
being considered sufficient for a boundary, and 
divisions of large areas determined not by geo- 
graphic, economic or sociologic considerations, but 
by the desire of politicians for the multiplication 
of offises. The establishment of a new state makes 
opportunities for men to secure such lucrative of- 
fises as governor, congressman, and membership in 
two legislativ houses, for, of course, each state must 

[121 



hav the bi-cameral system. This, Hke state sov- 
erenty, is held to be one of the bulwarks of our 
liberty. Often, as in the case of Pennsylvania, 
liberty is supposed to be secured by a very numer- 
ous membership in both houses, a dogma which 
inures to the advantage of offis-seekers, but to no 
other persons in the community. 

Products of unsystematic, hap-hazard develop- 
ment, existing state lines, especially in the eastern 
United States, cause the most exasperating con- 
fusions of jurisdiction, separating communities 
that ar by all other conditions interdependent, and 
placing under the same jurisdiction communities 
that hav no common local interest and ar even, 
in some cases, rivals. Thus Camden, N. J., is, in 
all its social and business relations, a part of Phila- 
delphia; Jersey City is a part of New York; Pitts- 
burg and, indeed, the whole of Pennsylvania west 
of the Alleghanies, hav no common interest with 
the cities on the Delaware and Susquehanna; north 
eastern Pennsylvania, with Scranton as its focus, 
is affiliated with New York, the lines of transporta- 
tion to tide- water at that city being direct, while to 
the Delaware and Susquehanna water-routes the 
transportation is indirect. Buffalo has little com- 
munity of interest with southeastern New York. 
New Mexico and Arizona refused to join; West 

[13 1 



Virginia was carved out of Virginia, but the in- 
habitants who constituted the new state, would 
probably almost unanimously hav refused to be ab- 
sorbd into either Ohio or Pennsylvania, altho these 
adjacent states wer both strongly devoted to the 
northern cause, and it was for devotion to that 
cause that the section now constituting West 
Virginia was torn from the original jurisdiction. 

If we read the documents contemporary with the 
period from the close of the revolution to the adop- 
tion of the Constitution, we are deeply imprest with 
the difficulties that the founders of the United 
States encounterd and the patience, ingenuity and 
foresight that they brought into play in overcoming 
absurd, selfish and unreasoning opposition. That 
they left some profound problems, such as the ex- 
tension of slavery, unsettled, should not astonish 
us; our astonishment should be that they accom- 
plisht so much. Apparently nothing but dire 
necessity arising out of the confusion of the so- 
called "confederation" compelled the people of 
the colonies to accept the suggestion of a conven- 
tion for forming a more definite compact. When 
the really wonderful document was about ready to 
be presented to the people, one of the principal 
states (N. Y.) withdrew from ofiicial connection 
with the convention, leaving Alexander Hamilton 

[141 



alone as a supporter from a district which was des- 
tined to acquire and deserve the title of the "Em- 
pire State." Rhode Island declined even to enter 
the convention. In many of the states the adop- 
tion of the new constitution was opposed with great 
bitterness, some of those who had been delegates 
using their best efforts to prevent its acceptance 
by the states that they had represented. By nar- 
row majorities in several cases was the "more per- 
fect union" formd, and to this day no unanimity 
exists among the people of the nation as to whether 
the union is a mere compact between soveren 
states or a complete fusion of the people into one 
nation. The appeal to arms in 1860 is often quoted 
by enthusiastic nationalists as having settled the 
matter, but this is not so. An appeal to arms, 
unless it results in the extermination of one party, 
settles nothing forever. The Irish Home Rule 
issue is as much alive today as it was when England 
first enterd upon the line of conquest in that 
iland; Alsace and Lorraine are still cherishing the 
hope of re-union to France, and France is only 
deterrd from the effort to retake them by the un- 
certainty of the outcome. The United States has 
taken possession of the Philippines, but it has not 
taken possession of the Filipinos, who stil cherish 
the hope of freedom, and regard the conquering 

[15 1 



nation as an interloper, tho that nation regards 
itself as a beneficent protector. 

In discussing the causes of any series of events, 
we may conveniently adopt a classification much 
used by doctors, and speak of predisposing and ex- 
citing causes. The predisposing causes of the fram- 
ing and adoption of the Constitution of the United 
States must be sought thruout the preceding centu- 
ries; one of the exciting causes may possibly be 
found in an interstate agreement, due largely to 
Washington's initiativ. The military and political 
fame of this leader has overshadowed his merits 
as afar-seeing economist. Great as was his devotion 
to the revolutionary cause, and to his duties as 
president of the new republic; he never forgot that 
the best bond of union between the colonies would 
be economic interdependence. His experiences 
in early life as surveyor for Lord Fairfax in north- 
western Virginia, and as an ofiiser in the military 
operations in the '50's, made clear to him that un- 
less the territory watered by the Ohio and its trib- 
utaries could be opened to the Atlantic ports by 
some efiicient method of transportation, the people 
who would soon occupy that region would lose 
their interest and with it their allegiance to the 
original colonies; states lukewarm or even hostile 
to the coast settlements would arise and the in- 

[161 



fluences of France and Spain would be dominant 
in the Mississippi valley. Prevented for seven 
years by his duties as commander-in-chief from 
giving any systematic consideration to plans for 
such communication, he began to urge them as soon 
as he had relinquisht his command. His plan in- 
volved, as has been noted above, a slack- water 
system on the Potomac, and to this the consent 
of Maryland as well as Virginia was needed. After 
some opposition an agreement was secured; the 
pourparlers incident to its accomplishment led to 
suggestions to include Pennsylvania and Delaware. 
This broadning of interstate comity helpt to pop- 
ularize the more extended efforts to secure a gen- 
eral convention to frame a stronger union. 

Enuf of the debates in the Federal Convention, 
and in the conventions of the several states cald 
to ratify the Constitution, hav been preservd to 
enable us to appreciate the intensity of the antag- 
onism to federation and the main causes of this 
feeling. As in all such conflicts, many of the most 
intense conservativs wer actuated by a commend- 
able motiv, believing that a union of soveren states, 
retaining as much as possible of original powers 
and privileges, would secure the greatest liberty 
and happiness. Each state had an individual his- 
tory of more or less dramatic type, especially in 

fl7l 



the early period, and, while the general racial, reli- 
gius and social characters wer much the same thru- 
out the land, diflFerences existed to a degree suffi- 
cient to develop a sort of tribal ethics, by which 
those not of the state wer regarded as natural 
rivals. This feeling, of course, intensified the 
loyalty to the state and diminisht that to the na- 
tion. Massachusetts had been settled largely by 
English non-conformists fleeing from Anglican per- 
secution; Pennsylvania by quakers, against whom 
the hand of every other Christian sect was held in 
hostility; Maryland largely by Roman catholics, 
likewise fleeing from persecution. 

The sincere and disinterested opponents of fed- 
eration wer probably in small proportion. Most 
of the anti-federalists were actuated by selfish con- 
siderations, such as the hope of offis, local advan- 
tages in interstate commerce, and, incidentally, 
opportunities to issue paper money and escape 
from taxation for payment of the public debt. 

We may glean a good deal of information as to 
what led men to favor or oppose ratification by 
noting the districts in which majorities for either 
side wer given. Almost everywhere, the cities and 
large towns wer federahst, the outlying, sparsly 
settled and lumbering regions, antifederalist. 

The extent to which economic determination 

[181 



operated on the minds of the people is wel shown 
in a letter from Timothy Pickering, who repre- 
sented the Luzerne district in the Pennsylvania 
Convention of 1787, and who was a stalwart fed- 
eralist. Under date of Dec. 26, 1787, he said: 
"Much opposition is expected in New York. That 
State has long been acting a disingenuus part. 
They refused the impost to Congress because half 
of New Jersey, a great part of Connecticut, the 
western part of Massachusetts and Vermont 
receivd their imports thru New York, who puts 
into her own treasury all the duties." In appor- 
tioning the causes, a large share must be given to 
the desire to prevent the diminution of offises. 
This is one of the most common and most per- 
sistent causes of antagonism to political reforms. 
It stands in the way of every simplification of 
public and private business, great and small. As 
it interfered with the formation of a "more per- 
fect union," so it has multiplied state governments 
unnecessarily, until now nearly fifty common- 
wealths constitute the United States and the same 
spirit prevents the consolidation of districts that 
should be under one administration. A local, but 
striking, example was the opposition in the mid- 
dle of the last century to the jconsolidation of the 
twenty -nine separate jurisdictions containd within 

[191 



the boundary of Philadelphia County, of a total 
area of less than 139 square miles. The "fetish" 
of decentralization was vividly shown in the 
speech of a democrat in the Pennsylvania legis- 
lature when the bil was under discussion. He 
held that the movement for consolidation is the 
first step to centralization and imperialism. If the 
different jurisdictions of Philadelphia county ar 
welded into one municipality, the next step wil be 
the obliteration of county lines, then of state lines 
and then the overthro of republican government. 

Such nonsensical utterances delayed for many 
years the advancement of Philadelphia. Of course, 
the actual motiv was in most cases the desire of 
every "petty, pelting offiser" to hold his job. 

It is interesting to note that while the larger 
states wer mostly tardy in ratifying the consti- 
tution and accomplis^ht it only by narro margins, 
some of the smaller states wer prompt and unani- 
mus. Delaware was the first to ratify; on the 
7th of December, less than three months after the 
document was finisht by the convention. New 
Jersey was also early and unanimus. These 
states had everything to gain by the provisions that 
gave them equal representation in the Senate 
and protected their interstate commerce. Lying 
between two great states, the respectiv principal 

[201 



cities of which wer alredy beginning to sho signs 
of great industrial and commercial power, the in- 
habitants of New Jersey, altho not entirely satis- 
fied with the plan, saw that if it was not adopted, 
the anarchical conditions of the old federation or 
even worse would be maintained. 

In spite of many forms of antagonism, the twelv 
states that had met in convention ratified the Con- 
stitution and the United States was establisht. 
Rhode Island came in later, and the thirteen that 
had publisht the great Declaration wer in one 
union. Disputes as to the conditions of that 
union and as to the powers of the general govern- 
ment, began at once. By its very nature and re- 
sponsibilities, the federal government was obliged 
to assert its authority in all cases in which -the 
Constitution did not explicitly forbid. The con- 
trolling elements wer mainly federalistic, altho by 
no means intensely so. The President, Vice-Pres- 
ident, Secretary of the Treasury and Chief Justice 
wer all inclined to the federal side. An early case, 
Chisholm vs. Georgia, was past upon by the 
Supreme Court with one dissenting vote (out of 6) 
in such a way as to sho that under the inter- 
pretation given by the Court, state soverenty 
would be a mere name. The antifederalists took 
alarm, and an amendment was made to the Con- 

[211 



stitution rendering invalid the doctrin that the 
Court promulgated. 

It would be tiresome to folio the course of events 
during the first half -century of the Republic that 
bear on the struggle between the centralizing and 
decentralizing tendencies. The former receivd a 
serins chec when Jefferson reacht the presidency. 
Thru the first quarter of the 19th century many 
threts of secession wer made, but, as is wel known, 
it was in 1832 that South Carolina made formal 
declaration of its intention to resist the enforce- 
ment of a federal law, and President Jackson was 
obliged to proclaim his intention of using the na- 
tional forces. The issues remaind sources of irrita- 
tion for about a quarter of a century longer, and 
then found intense expression in what is termd, ac- 
cording to the prejudis of the speaker, a rebellion 
or a civil war, but which is only correctly entitled 
as the " war between the states." As this war is the 
most serins stress thru which the nation has past, 
and as its origin and course wer very largely deter- 
mind by the doctrins of state soverenty that had 
taken deep root in the nation, the introductory 
portion of this book may be aptly closed here and 
some of the disadvantages of state soverenty as 
understood in the United States pointed out. 



BALEFUL EFFECTS OF JEFFERSONIAN 
THEORIES 

THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES 

I say " Jeff ersonian " theories, for altho many 
prominent Americans, under the spel of the fetish, 
behevd that state soverenty was necessary to the 
preservation of personal hberty, Jefferson's acces- ^ 
sion to the Presidency afforded opportunities for 
impressing on the new Repubhc systems of admin- 
istration that tended strongly to accentuate such 
views and diminish the federalizing movement. 
Jefferson's successors, for several terms, wer of like 
mind and, to use a banal expression, it was the 
irony of fate that Jackson should be the one upon 
whom lay the duty of first asserting the supremacy 
of a national law over a state law framed especially 
in an atmosphere of state soverenty. As his ex- 
pressions ar eminently federalistic in tone, it may 
be wel to quote a paragraf (Proclamation, Dec. 10, 
1832; Richardson's Mess. & Papers of Pres., Vol. 
2, p. 643) : 

"I consider, then, the power to annul a law of 

[23] 



the United States, assumed by one State, incom- 
patible with the existence of the Union, contradicted 
especially by the letter of the Constitution, un- 
authorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every 
principle on which it was founded and destructiv of 
the great object for which it was formed." 

The whole proclamation is worth reading as a 
statement of the incongruity of state soverenty 
and national existence. 

The action of South Carolina was due to the pas- 
sage of a tarif law that an agricultural community 
could not find otherwise than burdensome. The 
labor in the state was almost entirely by chattel- 
slaves; wage-slavery was quite unimportant. No 
labor-union problem could arise there; orators 
could make no appeal to the necessity of a tarif 
for protecting workmen from competition with the 
pauper labor of Europe. Altho, therefore, it is 
tru that the exciting cause was a difference on the 
propriety of a taxation system, the predisposing 
cause was slavery, and the filosofic historian wil 
find in the nullif action incident in 1832, the pro- 
drome of the war between the states. 

The framers of the Constitution did not meet the 
slavery issue squarely, but they must not be 
blamed for this. It is apparent, on reading the 
debates in the Convention of 1787, that union would 

[24 1 



hav been impossible if the abolition of slavery, or 
even the immediate suppression of the slave-trade, 
had been carried. Nor wer the slave states en- 
tirely responsible for this attitude. New England 
and Middle States communities benefitted by the 
trade and wer unwilling to lose its profits. In 
fact, in spite of the prohibition of it in 1808, se- 
cret importation of slaves from Africa, and thru 
interstate commerce, continued until the out- 
break of the war, which destroyed the market for 
them. (Dubois, Suppression of the Slave-Trade.) 

Some of the members of the Convention dout- ^ 
less believed that the question would settle itself 
thru the evolution of labor conditions. Ellsworth, 
of Connecticut, said "Let us not intermeddle. As 
the population increses, poor laborers wil be so 
plenty as to render slaves useless." This result 
might hav been attained much earlier than it was 
if the cotton-gin had not been invented. 

The compromise by which the slave-trade was 
continued for twenty years after the adoption of 
the Constitution was due largely to New Hamp- 
shire, Massachusetts and Connecticut, the dele- 
gates from which gave their consent to the pro- 
vision in consideration of the removal from the 
document of all restriction on Congress to enact 
navigation laws (Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave- 

[251 



Power) . The extension of the frontier made the 
issues much more intense. The southern capi- 
tahsts insisted on estabhshing slavery in the ter- 
ritories, and after many compromises, the election 
of Lincoln made evident the essential unity of the 
North or, at least, its effectiv unity against such 
extension. South Carolina took the initiativ, and 
even the most intense unionist, if a "tru sport," 
cannot but admire the manner in which the State 
proceeded. It simply repealed the ordinance by 
which it had accepted the Constitution in 1788. 
Other states acted promptly, and before Lincoln's 
administration was six months old a new compact 
had been formed and the nation was ablaze with 
war. Nothing is more certain than that the extent 
and rapidity of secession wer promoted by the 
existence of separate states with all the attributes 
of soverenty, such as executiv offisers, legislatures, 
powers of internal taxation, militia organization, 
and, perhaps the most powerful of all, consciusness 
of state loyalty, fostered thru many years of Demo- 
cratic administration, a legacy from Jeffersonian 
theories. 

From its inception to its close, the slavery ques- 
tion was economic in every practical aspect. The 
arguments drawn from the Bible and from other 
less important sources, by which the capitalistic 

[261 



exploiters of slavery and their henchmen tried to 
justify it as a system founded in morals, ethics or 
religion, wer mere dust-clouds concealing the tru 
issues. Three years before the battle of Lexington, 
the Virginia House of Burgesses unanimusly peti- 
tioned the King to put an end to the slave-trade 
in the colonies, basing their action not on "higher 
law" or "natural rights," but on the economic 
dangers of the system. Witness the language 
(text from article by R. L. Brock, Va. Hist. Soc, 
n. s. 6): 

"The many instances of your majesty's ben- 
evolent attention and most gracius disposition 
to promote the prosperity and happiness of your 
subjects in the colonies, encourage us to look up 
to the throne and implore your Majesty's pater- 
nal assistance in averting a calamity of a most 
alarming nature. The importation of slaves into 
the colonies has long been considered as a trade of 
great inhumanity, and under its present encourage- 
ment we hav reason to fear wil endanger the very 
existence of your Majesty's dominions. We ar 
sensible that some of your Majesty's subjects in 
Great Britain may reap emoluments from this sort 
of traflSc, but when we consider that it greatly re- 
tards the settlement of the colonies with more use- 
ful inhabitants, and may in time hav the most 

\ 27 1 



destructiv influence, we presume to hope that the 
interests of the few wil be disregarded when placed 
in competition with the security and happiness of 
such numbers of your Majesty's dutiful and loyal 
subjects. Deeply imprest with these sentiments, 
we most humbly beseech your Majesty to remove 
all these restrictions on your Majesty's Governors 
of this colony which inhibit their assenting to such 
laws as might chec so pernicius a commerce." 

Tho not germain to the subject under discussion, 
I cannot refrain from a few obiter dicta on the pro- 
fessions of humility and loyalty in this petition. 
Those of us who hav been born and reared under 
the Republic cannot appreciate the abject attitude 
of members of the House of Burgesses who framed 
it, and who undoutedly, in its literary form as wel 
as in its doctrin, exprest the sentiments of the 
great mass of the people of Virginia. This is, how- 
ever, the normal state of mind of those who ar 
subjects of a monarch who claims to rule by divine 
right. A more startling phase is that, on May 6, 
1776, four years after this petition was presented, 
Virginia, by a convention, adopted a series of reso- 
lutions declaring the abrogation of the power of 
George III, and, anticipating the phraseology of 
the Declaration of Independence in many respects, 
asserted that rulers ar the servants of the people, 

[281 



that the source of civil power is primarily in the 
people, by natural right, that religion is a matter of 
reason and conviction, and that no specific dogma 
can be establisht by law. Note, also, that the 
profit of the slave-trade is held to accru solely to 
persons "in Great Britain," whose interests found 
no response in the colonies. It is certain that if 
any considerable part of the inhabitants of the 
colony had then profited by the system, the peti- 
tion would not hav been adopted unanimusly, 
indeed, bearing in mind how the capitalistic por- 
tion of the community often compromises among^ 
its own members for the purpose of exploiting the 
proletariat, it is possible that the petition would 
hav been deemed "inexpedient" by a sufiicient 
number of the burgesses to prevent its adoption. 
If state soverenty had not existed in the early 
part of the 19th century, the slavery question 
would hav been dealt with under wholly local con- 
ditions. The autonomy of cities and towns would 
hav developt antagonistic interests and feelings, 
and it would hav been impossible to set a whole 
section of the nation aflame in a few months. 
Indeed, even with the favorable conditions that 
this artificial allegiance produced, local influences 
played a considerable part. Northwestern Vir- 
ginia refused to accept the ordinance of secession, 

[291 



and was erected into a separate state; Eastern 
Tennessee would probably hav done the same if 
it had not been surrounded by districts in sympathy 
with the secession movement. 

The action of the eleven states that withdrew 
formally from the union was based upon the theory 
of "compact," that is, that in accepting the Con- 
stitution of 1787, each state merely became a part- 
ner in an enterprise and reservd the right to ter- 
minate its relations when it saw fit. It is not prob- 
able that any statesman, however enthusiastic 
he might be as to the doctrin of state soverenty, 
ever tried to work out the problem as to what 
would become of a state if it should be permitted 
to withdraw from the union and set itself up as an 
independent nation. South Carolina, the first to 
make the formal thret, endeavored in 1832 to 
secure the co-operation of other states, but failed 
entirely, tho it is likely that this failure was not 
due so much to the loyalty of other states, as to 
the fact that the particular grievance of South 
Carolina — -the tarif — was not a serius one else- 
where ; the ears of the greater portion of the nation 
wer dul to the economic woes of slave-owners of 
the land of the palmetto. That the independent 
existence of states was not seriusly contemplated 
is shown by the fact that they wer no sooner out 

[301 



of the United States, as far as their own acts could 
take them, than they united in a confederacy and 
imposed upon one another definit obligations, 
essentially national in type. The Confederate 
States of America, composed of eleven soverenties, 
acted as one nation in all important matters. Under 
the circumstances of their withdrawal from the 
old Union, they could not consistently deny to 
each other the right to withdraw from the new. 
The preamble to the Constitution of the Confed- 
erate States specifically declared that each state 
retaind all of its soverenty. Notwithstanding % 
this, we cannot think that any state would hav 
been quietly permitted to withdraw from the Con- 
federacy during the war, and allow the armed 
forces of the United States to enter its ports and 
occupy its territory. 

Jefferson Davis, in his speech (Jan. 21, 1861) on 
retiring from the United States Senate, on the 
secession of Mississippi, made a point of the dis- 
tinction between nullification and secession {Cong. 
Rec, 2nd Sess., 36th Cong., Pt. 1, 487): 

"I hope none who hear me wil confound this 
expression of mine with the advocacy of the right 
of a state to remain in the Union and to disre- 
gard its Constitutional obligations by nullification. 
Such is not my theory. Nullification and seces- 

[311 



sion, so often confounded, ar indeed antagonistic 
principles. Nullification is the remedy it is sought 
to apply within the Union, and against an agent 
of the States. It is only to be justified when the 
agent has violated Constitutional obligations, and 
the State, assuming to judge for itself, denies the 
right of the agent thus to act, and appeals to other 
States of the Union for a decision, but when the 
States themselves and the people of the States hav 
so acted as to convince us that they wil not regard 
our Constitutional rights, then, and then for the 
first time, arises the doctrin of secession and its 
practical application. 

"That great man who now reposes with his 
fathers, who has been so often arraigned for want 
of fealty to the Union, advocated the doctrin of 
nullification because it preservd the Union. It 
was because of his deep-seated attachment to the 
Union that Mr. Calhoun advocated the doctrin 
of nullification, which he claimed would giv peace 
within the limits of the union, and not disturb it 
****** Secession belongs to a different class of 
rights, and is to be justified upon the basis that the 
States ar soveren. ****** The phrase "to exe- 
cute the law," as used by General Jackson, was ap- 
plied to a State refusing to obey the laws and yet 
remaining in the Union." 

[32] 



The argument seems to be that state soverenty 
is — to borro a phrase from physics — potential 
rather than kinetic as long as the state remains 
in the Union. While one sits in the game, one 
must obey the rules, but the privilege of cashing 
chips and withdrawing at any time is conceded 
to every player. It is not clear to me, however, 
what Mr. Davis meant in saying that Mr. Cal- 
houn favored nullification in order to prevent 
secession, unless it is that a state should be per- 
mitted to suspend the operation of national laws 
within its borders if it regarded them as contrary 
to the provisions of the compact. Such a theory 
of government would be mere filosofic anarchism. 
A nation thus constituted would fall to pieces by 
its own weight. 

The nullification acts of South Carolina in 1832 
grew out of resistance to tarif acts of Congress. 
These acts wer offered as revenue measures, but 
wer, as usual with such legislation, in the interest 
of certain capitalistic ventures. The statesmen of 
South Carolina, not misled, formally declared that 
inasmuch as the acts wer not for the purposes 
claimed and the revenue derived might be used 
for purposes not within the scope of constitutional 
powers, the citizens of their state wer not bound 
by the legislation and would prevent the coUec- 

[331 



tion of duties within its borders. President Jack- 
son considered these objections at length and dem- 
onstrated the. untenabihty of the South CaroHna 
position. His language, quoted a few pages above, 
is specific upon the point; nullification is on all 
fours with secession. The Southern statesmen 
who led the secession movement had the early 
history of the nation on their side, for, in rebelling, 
the colonies took the same stand that the eleven 
states did in seceding, but the arbitration of war 
determins the opinion of posterity. The American 
Revolution was the success of patriots ; the war be- 
tween the states was the failure of rebels. 

"Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason? 
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason." 

Nothing is more striking in the Constitution of 
the Confederate States than the positiv prohibition 
of the slave-trade and of the importation of negroes 
from non-slave-holding states (Art. 1, sec. 9). A 
specific provision was made giving to the Congress 
power to prohibit the importation of slaves from 
any state not a member of the confederacy, or 
from territory not belonging to it. If one of the 
slave-holding states should hav refused to ratify 
the Constitution of the confederacy, an interest- 
ing complication would hav arisen, and probably 

[34 1 



the war would hav been much shorter. It is un- 
fortunate that, in human history, we can make 
only one set of experiments; we cannot turn time 
backward and try out a new lead. 

The fact that the government had past into the 
hands of the Republican party was known early 
in November, 1860. The Southern states took 
immediate steps to sever their connection with the 
United States, and, as might hav been expected, 
South Carolina was the first, seceding in December. 

An examination of the election returns for 1860 
indicates that if the concentration of authority in^ 
the hands of a few leaders representing arbitrary 
jurisdictions (states) had not existed, the develop- 
ment of organized opposition to the federal gov- 
ernment would hav been much more difficult. 
Four presidential tickets wer in the field. Of 
these, Lincoln and Hamlin stood for the anti- 
slavery view, altho the platform on which they 
wer nominated admitted the right of each state 
to "order and control its own domestic institutions 
according to its own judgment exclusivly." Breck- 
enridge and Lane represented the extreme South- 
ern principles. The Douglas and Johnson, Bell 
and Everett tickets wer efforts at compromise; 
the platform of the latter was mere "glittering 
generalities." 

[351 



Of the eleven States that afterwards made up 
the Southern Confederacy, Virginia was the only 
one that had Republican electors. South Carolina, 
as usual, chose its electors thru the legislature. 
When the popular vote from the other ten States is 
totald (figures obtained from Stanwood's Hist, 
of Pres. Elections), it is found that Breckenridge and 
Lane had 352,651 votes and the other three tickets 
281,058. This is a ratio of 5 to 4. When it is con- 
sidered that many parts of the South wer in 
the control of a social and political oligarchy almost 
as absolute and uncompromising as the overlord- 
ship of a feudal fief, and that, in many districts, 
the election managers may hav returnd the votes 
as they saw fit, just as the managers of the re- 
publican party hav been doing for twenty years in 
Philadelphia, it is evident that an election by dis- 
tricts, insted of by states, would hav shown much 
opposition to the views held by the Southern 
leaders who afterwards entered into the secession 
movment. Without the fatal system of state 
autonomy there would hav been no equal repre- 
sentation in the Senate; in fact, in all probability, 
but one legislativ body would hav been establisht. 
Such elimination of an artificial method of repre- 
sentation — a sacrifice to a fetish — would hav not 
only simplified the national government, but hav 

[36 1 



led the several states to establish one house as 
they had in colonial times. 

All thru the period of ferment on the slavery 
and cognate questions that embittered the people 
of the United States for the half century before 
the election of Lincoln, a great element of strength 
of the slave holding power lay in the right of equal 
representation in the Senate. Under the economic 
methods that they had chosen to adopt, it was im- 
possible that they should develop diversified in- 
dustries or receive any considerable share of the 
European immigration which was building up th^ 
nation in such a unique manner. It was fortunate 
that in the convention to frame the Constitution, 
the opposition to slavery had sufficient strength to 
prevent the slave population being represented in 
ful number. By a compromise, it was counted at 
three-fifths. If ful representation had been ac- 
corded it, the decentralizing elements would hav 
been materially strengthened in the Lower House, 
and the extension into the territories of the social 
and economic conditions that made for state sov- 
erenty would hav been much promoted. 

It is not a question here of the moral, economic 
or ethical relations of slavery or whether the Afri- 
can negro was better off as a slave in a cultured 
community than as a member of a savage tribe. 

[371 



It is a question of facts. The population of the 
United States grew with great rapidity during the 
early part of the 19th century, while great ques- 
tions of policy wer hotly discust by the people. 
The gain in the southern states was largely by the 
importation and rearing of slaves; that of the 
northern states and in the new areas thrown open 
to settlement was by white races from northern 
Europe. The statistics taken from the U. S. cen- 
sus reports show these facts distinctly. 

PROPORTION OF WHITE TO NEGRO POPULATION IN TYPI- 
CAL NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN STATES, EXPREST IN 
PERCENTAGE OF THE WHOLE NUMBER AND COMPARED 

IN TWO CENSUS PERIODS. 

1820 1850 

White Negro White Negro 

Massachusetts 98.7 1.3 99.1 0.9 

New York 97.1 2.9 98.4 1.6 

Pennsylvania 96.9 2.9 97.7 2.3 

Delaware 76.0 24.0 77.8 22.2 

Virginia (Inc. W. Va.) . . .56.6 43.4 62.9 37.1 

North Carolina 65.6 34.4 63.6 36.4 

South CaroHna 47.2 52.8 41.1 58.9 

Georgia 50.8 49.2 44.3 55.7 

Alabama 66.8 33.2 55.3 44.7 

Mississippi 55.9 44.1 48.8 51.2 

Louisiana 47.8 51.8 49.3 50.7 

Arkansas 88.1 11.7 77.3 22.7 

Tennessee 80.4 19.6 75.5 24.5 

Slight discrepancies in the totals in some cases 
ar due to small percentages of other races. 

[381 



It wil be seen that in eight of the states that 
subsequently enterd the Southern Confederacy, a 
marked increse of proportion of negroes occurred, 
while the states under the influence of the white 
European immigration diminisht their negro per- 
centage, and this in spite of considerable numbers 
of negroes continually escaping from slavery and 
locating in the border states. Louisiana is the 
only typical Southern state that shows a gain in 
percentage of white inhabitants. 

Thru the unfortunate theories of state soverenty, 
and by reason of the self-consciusness of a few ^ 
small states, a legislativ body had to be formed in 
which Rhode Island, the area of which is about 
3irroth of the contiguus United States, has the 
same representation as Pennsylvania with an area 
35 times as great. Nevada, with a population of 
82,000, has the same representation as New York 
with over 9,000,000. Sixty-five cities of the United 
States hav populations larger than Nevada. These 
abnormal conditions, due originally to selfish 
motivs, hav been perpetuated under the absurd 
notion that there is something conserving of human 
liberty in such inequalities. 



39 



TARIF LEGISLATION 
General Hancock said in 1880 "the tarif is a 
local issue," for which utterance he was savagely 
attackt by the beneficiaries of protection and by 
their dupes. Today, no one who watches the de- 
bates in Congress can fail to see the correctness 
of Hancock's statement. No tarif bil, in fact, has 
ever come out of the American Congress in which 
the local issues wer not dominant. A protectiv 
duty is not an economic error, if we accept the 
chauvinistic doctrin that finds so much support in 
this country, namely, that the rest of the world is 
our oyster which we wil open — with the sword, if 
necessary. A nation that desires to secure all the 
advantages of situation and progress for itself, de- 
sires to develop a diversified industry, that it may 
be self-reliant when occasion arises, is justified in 
establishing any imposts and other interferences 
with commerce from other nations, but while 
such objects hav been the usual pretenses for tarif 
legislation, the essential influences hav been the 
financial advantage of certain classes of individu- 
als or certain districts of the country. In the pres- 
ent Congress, we see the members from Louisiana, 
antagonizing free sugar, as they hav always done 
since their State has been growing sugar-yielding 
plants. 

[40] 



All thru the history of the country, the senator- 
ial oligarchy has been able to prevent progressiv 
legislation and to protect the holders of privilege. 
The helplessness of our House of Representatives 
contrasts very strongly with the power of the 
British House of Commons, which even in days 
when the rights of the aristocracy wer much less 
in question than today, secured many concessions 
from the King and Lords. The expedient of at- 
taching advisable legislation to a "Money Act" 
and compelling the lords to accept the reforms or 
sacrifice the revenues has been common in British % 
politics, but when, a number of years ago, the 
Lower House of Congress exprest an intention to 
use this method to force necessary legislation thru 
the Senate, a cry of "revolution" was at once 
raised by those opposed to the legislation contem- 
plated, and those who considered the Senate as 
the "palladium of our liberties." 

It is gratifying to note that the national con- 
sciusness of the absurdity of the system of repre- 
sentation for which the Senate stands is at last be- 
ing awakened, as is shown by the progress of the 
movement for the election of the senators by 
popular vote. A complete relegation of the choice 
to the people wil do something towards removing 
the decentralization for which the Senate stands, 

[41] 



but as long as the theory of state soverenty obtains, 
complete reform is impossible. The Senate, after 
all, is merely an outward, visible sign of an inward, 
political error and the only satisfactory method of 
dealing with it wil not be to reform it indifferently, 
but altogether, that is, to destroy it, and to hav but 
one national legislativ body, the members of which 
shal represent individual districts with no state 
allegiance, nominal or real. 



SOCIAL PROBLEMS 

When the Constitution was submitted, one of 
the most serins objections was that it contained 
nothing formally assuring to the people the liber- 
ties of speech, religion, and person that had be- 
come so dear to them. Some states, indeed, ac- 
cepted the document upon condition that a "Bill 
of Rights" should be provided without unneces- 
ary delay. Under this pressure, eight of the first 
ten amendments were added before the nation was 
two years old. Their language is wel known to all 
educated Americans; the text containing probably 
the most concise and comprehensiv code of per- 
sonal liberty ever given to the world, yet the blight- 
ing hand of state soverenty has been laid upon 
them, and we ar told by lawyers that the declara- 

[421 



tions apply only to the citizen in his federal rela- 
tions, and that any state is at liberty to deprive 
its citizens and the citizens of all other states that 
may be within its borders, of all the rights vouch- 
safed by the amendments. Thus, Coudert {Cer- 
tainty and Justice, 67) says: "It has been held by 
"a long line of authorities, both before and after 
"the adoption of the 14th amendment, that the 
" so-called bill of rights contained in the first eight 
"amendments to the Constitution applied only to 
"the federal government and did not limit the 
"power of the States." 

A state can abridge any freedom, and in 1854 it 
was held that the first amendment does not pre- 
vent a state from abridging the freedom of religion. 
Pennsylvania has just enacted a law of this type, 
namely, requiring ten verses of the Bible to be 
read at the opening of every scool conducted by 
the State. This is manifestly setting up a system 
of teaching religius dogma, since, for instance, it 
compels a Jewish student to listen to the denuncia- 
tion of Jews exprest in certain parts of the New 
Testament. Such an act could never hav been 
put thru the National Legislature. 

In the early days of the Union, many restrictions 
on the liberty of citizens wer to be found in the 
several States. In some the right to vote and hold 

[43 1 



offis was given only to those professing Christianity ; 
indeed, in some, the rights wer limited to those 
professing certain phases of that religion. It was 
not until 1825 that Maryland removed civil dis- 
abilities from Jews. 

Thus it appears that, under the baleful influense 
of the theory of state soverenty, the rights for 
which the people of several states so strongly con- 
tended when the Constitution was submitted, and 
in response to which demands the eight amend- 
ments wer made, ar not guaranteed to any one 
living in an organized state. It follows, therefore, 
that, as the natural evolution of territory within 
the jurisdiction of the United States is from the 
so-called "territorial" government, in which the 
area is directly under federal jurisdiction, to soveren 
statehood, the residents of unorganized areas ar 
more secure in their persons, property and opinions 
than those in organized communities. Surely, here 
is a reduction to absurdity as definit as any in 
Euclid. 

The danger is all the greater in view of the 
recent tendencies of the United States Supreme 
Court. In one of its early decisions — the Dart- 
mouth College case — the effect was to restrict 
state action, but since then a line of decisions tend- 
ing to increase the authority of what is called the 

[44] 



** police power" confers upon the voters of each 
state, thru their legislature, entire control over the 
liberties of the residents of the state whether cit- 
izens or not. 

It is, however, not merely in the taking away of 
liberties that the exaggertition of state authority 
has its dangers, but in interfering with many phases 
of advancement. The advances in scientific meth- 
ods in all phases of life hav necessitated many 
public works that cannot be carried out by govern- 
ments that control only limited jurisdictions, espe- 
cially when not determind by natural boundaries. 
At the founding of the Union, some of these mat- 
ters wer fully in evidence and the states had to 
concede to the federal government the entire con- 
trol. Among these were the post-ojSice, the mint, 
the treaty-power, the war power, the control of 
interstate navigable streams, the protection of 
American citizens and property on the high seas. 

Many problems, however, that now bulk largely 
in management of government wer then either non- 
existent or so trifling as to escape attention. When 
abundance of land is open to settlement on liberal 
terms, and when forests and streams ar practically 
free to all, most of the necessaries of life can be se- 
cured easily and cheaply. The Atlantic slope is 
wel-watered. Every one of the thirteen colonies 

[45 1 



had at least one good harbor and some of them 
several. Large streams navigable for deep draft 
vessels far above the point of contamination with 
sea-water furnisht fresh surface water; the abun- 
dant rainfall, with the large extent of fairly level, 
porus, soil, diminishing the run-off, gave enormus 
supplies of subsoil water, mostly of excellent qual- 
ity. It was many years before even the most 
rapidly growing areas began to feel the need of 
artificial purification of water-supply, and it is only 
within the past few years that the further problem 
of the purification of sewage has loomed largely 
in public helth administration. 

In the questions of forest preservation, reclama- 
tion of waste lands, irrigation, preservation of purity 
of streams, protection of drainage areas, purifi- 
cation of sewage, state lines must be ignored. Even 
in the weather prognostications these artificial 
distinctions ar ignored. What kind of a service 
would we hav if the collection and interpretation 
of data wer left to state authorities.^ I might go 
on at great length enumerating the matters of 
public import that can be properly administered 
only by the national government. Quarantin may 
be taken as one of these. Originally a purely 
local service, it past into state control in the ad- 
ministration of the several ports, but has of late 

[461 



been passing into the hands of the national govern- 
ment. This latter has much greater facilities for 
carrying out the work. Thru its wel-organized 
Marine Hospital service, with strict disciplin and 
in touch with the consular agents of the United 
States in all parts of the world, it can determin 
much more quikly and better than any state 
authority could do the precautions necessary to 
prevent the entrance of contagius diseases thru 
commercial intercourse. So completely is this 
recognized that the quarantin authorities of 
the several states ar lookt upon as little more than ^ 
perfunctory, indeed, there can be no dout that 
they would be abolisht wer it not for the political 
patronage that the appointment means to the 
politicians and the revenue that it gives to favor- 
ites. Pennsylvania, in this way, maintains at 
great expense a quarantin station on the Delaware 
river, tho the station maintained by the United 
States is ample for all protection. To abandon 
the Pennsylvania station would, however, be to 
yield some of the so-called "dignity" of an inde- 
pendent Commonwealth, and besides to cut out 
some rills of patronage possest by the governor of 
the state. 

The difficulties in securing labor legislation, es- 
pecially laws relating to the labor of women and 

[471 



children, ar greatly increast by the multiplicity of 
governments. The Constitution of the United 
States puts the whole country under one economic 
system, as far as regards fundamental principles 
of business. No state has any advantages, other 
than those that arise from natural conditions or 
the enterprise of its inhabitants. It is not to be 
denied that at the time of the adoption of the in- 
strument an economic advantage was indirectly 
conceded to certain states, but the right to hold 
slaves was not denied to any part of the union. 
Local conditions made the slave-holding states 
almost entirely non-competitiv with the non-slave- 
holding. The former wer devoted to lines of agri- 
culture that had no value in the north, had no im- 
portant manufactures, and only moderate com- 
mercial activity. If the South had early developt 
great industries, such as iron and steel products 
and textiles, ship-building, mining, or activ com- 
mercial enterprises, the north would hav promptly 
felt the competition and would hav either also 
resorted to slave labor or hav insisted upon some 
compensating condition. Indeed, it is very likely 
that had such competition been manifested at the 
time of the revolution, even the loose union then 
formed would hav been impossible. Had England 
left the colonies to their own economic control, 

[481 



allowing them to develop freely trade, manu- 
factures and mining, and imposing only a reason- 
able levy of taxes for support of the empire, nothing 
would hav been heard of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence. Our forefathers would hav borne with 
a good deal of sentimental tyranny if they had 
been left free to exploit the riches of the new coun- 
try. 

The boundaries of most states ar purely arbi- 
trary, but in the case of the original colonies, the 
number was determind by peculiar natural con- 
ditions. On examining the map of the Atlantic 
slope an abundance of good harbors wil be noted. 
Hence, the several colonizing expeditions found 
opportunities to locate at many points along the 
coast and wer able to start independent foci, a 
condition all the more desirable in view of the fact 
that the different parties wer more or less hostil. 
The Quakers who came with Penn would surely not 
hav been welcome in Boston harbor; the Roman 
catholics who came with Lord Baltimore would not 
hav found comfort in Virginia. To each one of 
the original thirteen states there is convenient 
entrance from the sea. New Hampshire has Ports- 
mouth; Massachusetts, its bay; Rhode Island and 
Connecticut, the harbors on the great sound; New 
York, its bay ; Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Del- 

[49 1 



aware, a great bay and river; Maryland and Vir- 
ginia also the abundant harbors of the Chesapeake; 
North Carolina, Wilmington; South Carolina, 
Charleston harbor; Georgia, the harbor of Savan- 
nah. Had the territory further south been settled 
or acquired by English people, another indepen- 
dent soverenty would hav been establisht, for 
Florida has several good harbors. There might 
then hav been fourteen states, Pennsylvania would 
not hav been the middle one, and its title, "Key- 
stone State," would hav been unknown to history. 
The significance of these geografic conditions is 
emphasized if we compare the Atlantic with the 
Pacific slope. On the latter, few harbors exist. 
Within the limits of the isotherms — or perhaps one 
might better say, isoclimes — acceptable to inhabi- 
tants of western Europe, there are but three good 
harbors that can be entered directly from the ocean. 
If such had been the configuration of the Atlantic 
coast, it is probable that but three or four inde- 
pendent colonies would hav been formed and much 
of the sentimental side of the revolutionary move- 
ment would hav been changed. 



50 



THE UNWISDOM OF STATE SOVERENTY SHOWN 
BY THE TENDENCIES OF NATIONAL LEGIS- 
LATION 

From the beginning of the administration of 
Washington to the present, the evolution in pohey 
has been unbroken, tending to the suppression of 
state soverenty and the increase of the functions 
of the national government. For a long while this 
movement was retarded by the slave-power. The 
beneficiaries of this system saw clearly that state 
soverenty was essential to its maintenance. Nor 
was the support of the system limited to slave- ^ 
holders or their immediate co-citizens. Many 
persons in the non-slaveholding states derived 
profit from the smuggling of slaves, secretly favored 
the trafiic, and openly defended the institution 
as necessary to the development of the Southern 
States. Not a few prominent merchants of the 
commercial centers north of Mason and Dixon's 
line owed a large part of their fortunes to slave- 
handling. There is ground for the view that 
from such a source was derived part of the en- 
dowment of a certain charitable institution, the 
founder of which was known as an owner of slaves, 
and who, in the directions for the administration of 
the trust, specifically limited it to "white" children. 

The war between the states was a desperate 

[51] 



appeal to the principle of state-autonomy in its 
greatest range. The failure of the Southern Con- 
federacy is held by many to hav settled forever the 
right of secession. This, as remarked in an earlier 
part of this essay, is an error. War never settles 
anything except when it exterminates one of the 
parties, but slavery was destroyed and with it 
went a great deal of the passion for "state rights" 
that characterized the speeches of statesmen North 
and South in the period "befoh de wah." After 
the turmoil of the reconstruction period, an era 
of nationalization set in that has continued to the 
present day and shows no signs of abating. The 
war itself necessarily did much to develop national 
power. The national-banking act was an impor- 
tant step in this direction. Those of us who recol- 
lect the confusion, uncertainty and fraud grow- 
ing out of the power given by the several states to 
incorporate banks of issue, can realize the benefit 
conferred by the national legislation that wiped 
out, by the simple resort to the taxing power, all 
these institutions. If it was not for the fact that 
most of us feel that party platforms are made to 
" get of and on by, and not to stand on," we might 
be alarmed by the occasional silly declarations of 
the Democratic party in convention in favor of 
the repeal of the tax on state banks of issue. The 

[521 



declaration in its last national convention (1912) 
that the levying of duties on imported articles, 
except for revenue, is a state and not a national 
power, is of the same type as the state-bank policy. 
Fortunately there is no likelihood that, tho the 
party is in full power, it wil even pretend to carry 
out the plank. 

Among the important steps towards nationali- 
zation that hav been taken of late years may be 
mentioned the federal food law, the work of the 
Interstate Commerce Commission, and of the 
Geological Survey. The maps issued by the las* 
named are delimited by lines of longitude and 
latitude and ignore state boundaries. Thus the 
maps respectivly of the New York and Philadel- 
phia districts include considerable portions of New 
Jersey, for the territory included in Camden and 
Burlington counties is as much tributary to Phil- 
adelphia as is that of Montgomery and Delaware 
counties; Jersey City is as much a part of New 
York as is Brooklyn or the territory on Staten 
Island. 

Public Health Questions. — Progress in san- 
itary science has been one of the most striking 
features of recent years. Not that methods of 
public and private hygiene hav not been regarded 
formerly, for even the ancients gave much atten- 

[531 



tion to both phases, but the modern progress has 
been along more exact Hnes than our forefathers 
wer able to utilize. The discoveries in bacteri- 
ology and pathology, the authoritativ collection 
of morbidity and mortality statistics, and the ex- 
tensiv intercommunication between nations hav 
tended to inform us of the manner and method of 
propagation of disease. The advance in knowl- 
edge of remedies and disinfectants has greatly in- 
creased the power of restricting contagion and in- 
fection, and diminishing the mortality of many 
diseases. Now bacteria, whether carried in air, 
water, food, clothing, or bodies of animals, have no 
respect for political boundaries, and scarcely any 
for natural boundaries. Hence, the control of an 
epidemic is a national not a state matter. Indeed, 
in many cases it is an international matter, and 
nations that hav no particular attachment for each 
other hav been obliged to make agreements for 
mutual action in dealing with certain diseases. 

It is not surprizing, therefore, that we find a 
growing interest in the establishment of a national 
helth department. The fetish of "individualism" 
has operated in a peculiar manner, for it has kept 
the human resident of the United States a prey to 
many dangers to life and helth, and has permitted 
all other living creatures, animal and plant, to be 

[54 1 



protected. The national government has for years 
had the duty of investigating and controlHng the 
diseases of domestic animals and valuable plants. 

Nor has the nation's care been limited to the 
animals and plants naturally existing in a given 
region, or introduced with settlers; advantage has 
been taken of the great variety in climate and soil 
in the United States, and plants from other climes 
hav been successfully introduced. The efforts of 
state administrations hav usually been to waste 
many natural resources; the national efforts to 
conserv. At the present time the "land grabbers*' 
who ar trying to interfere with the great conser- 
vation methods of the national government find 
one of their best means is to hav forest and other 
reservations returned to state control, making the 
pretense that this is giving these areas and de- 
posits "back to the people," whereas it is really 
giving them to the exploiters and speculators. 

The administration of the laws for the protection 
of domestic animals and useful plants has been 
almost wholly satisfactory and been of great finan- 
cial benefit. Some friction between state and 
national officials has occurred, but as a rule the 
state authorities work in harmony with the central 
bureaus. When, however, we come to laws affect- 
ing human beings, the harmfulness of state auton- 

[55 1 



omy is seen in every direction. Regulation of prac- 
tise of medicin, dentistry and pharmacy, restric- 
tion of hours and control of condition of work 
by wage-earners, especially women and children, 
prevention of spread of contagius diseases — all these 
important problems must be solved, we ar told, 
under the theory that they ar affairs of the in- 
dividual state. The absurdity of this view is well 
shown by the existing conditions in the regulation 
of the practise of medicin. Over a quarter of a 
century ago it was recognized that the methods 
of American medical colleges wer highly objection- 
able. Students wer admitted without any con- 
ditions and graduated without sufficient exam- 
ination. In fact, most American medical scools 
wer little more than business enterprises; the main 
object of the professors was to make money. By 
the efforts of some reformers within the profession, 
public interest was aroused and systems of official 
control wer slowly developt until today most states 
hav a method of ascertaining the qualifications of 
those who wish to practise medicin within their 
borders. Similar evolution has occurred with re- 
gard to dentistry and pharmacy, altho perhaps not 
yet as extensiv or thoro as in the medical field. 
The public and professional benefit from these con- 
trols is much limited by the complicated admin- 

[561 



istration of them. Each state must hav its board 
of examination and Kcensure, in some cases a 
separate board for each of the sects of medicin. A 
person may hav permission to practise in one state 
and be denied the same in the adjacent states, 
hence, the absurd condition may arise that a doc- 
tor may be allowed to visit patients on one side of 
the street but not on the other, if, as occasionally 
happens, the town is located on a state boundary. 
One system of education should be set up for all 
medical, dental and pharmacy scools in the United 
States; one standard of examination should be es- 
tablisht and carried out by national authority, and 
the certificate issued under this should be valid 
wherever the flag flies. As often happens when 
state soverenty interferes seriusly, some abatement 
of its effect has been secured in these matters thru 
reciprocity, but many absurd and anomalus con- 
ditions still exist, and in some cases special regu- 
lations hav been made which seem to hav at base 
the desire to force all who wish to practise in the 
given state to attend educational institutions in 
that state, i. e., encouraging home talent as far as 
possible. 

Edward Gibbon says that our ears ar cold to the 
recital of distant misery and, similarly, most per- 
sons ar indifferent to these woes afflicting the 

[571 



learned professions, but along certain lines the evil 
is widely appreciated. Concerning the necessity 
for uniformity in laws governing marriage, divorce, 
the duties of parents and the rights of children, 
public feeling is gradually arousing, tho its present 
condition on these topics in this country is a dis- 
grace to our civilization. Pennsylvania has just 
adopted a law authorizing the refusal of a marriage 
license to persons afflicted with certain diseases, but, 
unfortunately, many other states hav not this law, 
and, therefore, all that wil be necessary if defectivs 
wish to marry wil be a short trip into some adjoin- 
ing state. A national law that would provide that 
no marriage would be valid in the United States or 
any place subject to their jurisdiction, when either 
of the parties is a citizen of the United States at 
the time of the marriage, unless certain physical 
and mental conditions wer met, would satisfy the 
hygienic requirements of the case. 

The facility of divorce is a great scandal, made 
more so by the fact that some states hav, merely for 
the money that accrues to functionaries and law- 
yers, made divorce very easy. The decrees of some 
states ar easily disregarded by the simple ex- 
pedient of remaining in some other state for a 
sufficient time to acquire a so-called "residence." 
One of the parties in a divorce suit may be pro- 

[581 



hibited from marrying a co-respondent during the 
life of the other party, but as such decree is vahd 
only within the boundary of the state in which it 
is issued, the inhibited party can easily defy the 
rule. 



59 



METHODS OF NATIONAL ADMINISTRA- 
TION 

As the spirit of this essay may be regarded by 
many as essentially destructiv, it is, perhaps, but 
fair that I should set forth some plan for the 
administration of the territory of the United States, 
when the subdivisions now termed "States" ar 
effaced. Many persons, indeed, who might favor 
the obliteration of state lines and the abolition of 
state soverenty, wil hesitate because of the fear 
that so 7ast a country cannot be satisfactorily 
governed except by a system of almost indepen- 
dent units. Yet it must be borne in mind that the 
Russian Empire is ruled as a whole, and if it be 
said that Russia is badly ruled, the reply is that 
such bad government is only the outcome of the 
ignorance, bigotry, brutality, and extraordinary 
development of privilege, making Russia a bar- 
barian power, in spite of the veneer of civil- 
ization and culture of some of its great cities and 
in certain circles of its population. 

Under the form of national government that I 

[601 



advocate it seems to me that several radical 
changes can be made with advantage. 

(1) One congressional body. The Senate was 
merely a concession to the petty ambitions of a 
few small states. Inasmuch as a constitutional 
amendment has now made senators directly elected 
by the people, even the nominal distinction be- 
tween them and representativs has disappeared, 
and there is no use for the "Social Club" which is 
principally concerned in thwarting the wishes of 
the people as exprest in the other House. Mem- 
bers of Congress may be elected every two years,v 
from districts constituted in the main as at pres- 
ent, the ratio being, of course, increast as the popu- 
lation increases in order to prevent the house 
from becoming too unwieldy. Members should be 
elected in November, and take their seats as soon 
after January 1st as practicable, the new Congress 
meeting at that time. Proportional representation 
might be establisht, however, which would prob- 
ably giv much better government, but this is a 
detail that need not be considered here. (2) As 
at present, the country should be divided into ad- 
ministrative districts for administration of laws, 
collection of revenue, control of conservation of 
natural resources, and other matters which the 
national government wil be obliged to take over, 

[611 



many of which, indeed, it is now taking over, in 
spite of state soverenty, such as quarantin, road 
construction and irrigation. Such administrativ 
districts would folio natural lines of division, not 
as at present, accidental or artificial ones. Thus, 
the district of which New York in the dominating 
focus would include considerable territory in north- 
ern New Jersey; that in which Philadelphia is 
dominant point would also include territory in New 
Jersey. (3) Over the whole nation would be in 
operation uniform laws as to hours of labor, labor 
of women and children, conditions of marriage and 
divorce, methods of transfer of property, collection 
of debts and taxation of incomes, inheritances and 
businesses. A system of incorporation of cities by 
the national government should be provided, and, 
of course, the existing incorporations of cities 
would be maintained. To such incorporated area 
would be reservd all powers of establishing scools, 
regulation of liquor traffic, Sunday laws, and other 
matters that belong to the initiativ of the people 
rather than to that of the national government. 
Thus, while the national government might pre- 
scribe the racial and bodily conditions necessary 
to a legal marriage (as some states hav done), it 
should not prescribe the ceremonies, except to 
authorize certain ofiicials to perform the ceremony 

[621 



as a purely civil contract or to allow, as in Penn- 
sylvania, a valid marriage by merely public proc- 
lamation by the parties. (4) The national sys- 
tem would, of course, — and this wil be one of its 
great advantages — increase the function of local 
self-government, relegating to the individual com- 
munities many powers and duties belonging to 
state governments and often very badly adminis- 
terd by these. Witness the difficulty that Phila- 
delphia has had lately in carrying out its ambitions 
for better thorofares, better port facilities and 
management of its det and local taxation. ^ 



63 



